Marion Kinselo

Not a known mother of Cornelius ‘the immigrant’ Kincheloe.

However, at least some evidence suggests that Hugh and Marian MAY be Cornelius's parents, i.e. extremely uncommon surname, the appropriate general time period, a general geographic proximity, a potential Haley, connection, etc.

See more below.

From https://web.archive.org/web/20010808142537/www.kincheloe.com/origin...

What was his evidence for Hugh? Was it a document from 1660? Was it a 17th century original record? The answer is no. A bit of investigation reveals that his sole source was, in fact, a brief item from a genealogical journal published in the 1920s. We are surprised to learn that the only citation ever offered in support of the existence of Hugh Kinselo was published in the June 1923 issue of The County Court Note-Book. Apart from the fact that this journal has a reputation for dubious reliability, the content of the "Hugh Kinselo" item proves to be the real shocker. After so much speculation on Hugh, his wife Marion, and his relation to Cornelius, the family researcher is stunned upon reading the actual source record. The full text of this brief item is printed below, precisely as originally published:

MARIAM HAEY (?) m. Hugh Kunneloe (?)

N-n, Va. ix-92. 14Oct1660

What a jolt it is to realize that this is the sole record that generated the account of Hugh Kinselo. The names early genealogists have led us to consider ~~ "Haley" and "Kinselo" ~~ now appear to have been creative extrapolations from the actual names in the source record.

From https://www.geni.com/discussions/185015?msg=1686913

Private User writes:

I agree that there is no proof that this couple were the parents of Cornelius Kincheloe. However, there was a Hugh Kincheloe / Kunneloe and he is recorded as marrying Marion Hary (probably Haley) -

The marriage occurred in 1660, which would’ve been around the time that Cornelius ‘s parents most likely married.

The marriage took place in today’s Accomack County, Virginia, which was quite close to Old Rappahannock / Richmond County, Virginia by boat, the predominant form of transport at the time.

And there are a number of connections between members of a Haley / Halley family and Cornelius Kincheloe’s immediate family, signing as witnesses to deeds and wills and living on adjoining plantations through generations, etc.

All of that is still not enough to prove a Hugh and Marion Haley Kincheloe descent, or even that H & M were related to the later Northern Neck nabobs. But poor Hugh Kincheloe / Kunneloe was more than "so called.." Refreshingly, he did in fact exist.

While almost all 17th century Virginia Parish records have. well … perished , contemporaneous copies of some birth's deaths and marriages in 1660 and 1661 still exist for Hungars Parish. They are the only two years that survive from the 1600's for this congregation and have only done so because the Minister had the foresight to copy them into the Northampton Court Order Books shortly after they occurred. Transcripts of these records were published in the William and Mary Quarterly over a century ago, and have also appeared in booklets, etc.

To wit:

"A true account of such persons as have been baptised, married and burried in Hungars Parish from ye 25th. of March anno. 1660 unto ye 25th. of March 1661. .......

....Hugh Kunneloe & Marian Hary 8br 14th.... (MWW note : 14 October 1660)

....True Copy, John Lawrence, Clerk of Hungars Parish."

(source: Robertson, Thomas B. "Hungars Parish Records for 1660-1661," The William and Mary Quarterly, Vol. 18, No. 3 (Jan. 1910): 178-181)

I have to strongly disagree with my distant cousin and his Hugh view -

I think Hugh Kincheloe and Hugh Kunneloe sound very similar phonetically, and they look almost identical in print and script. In fact Kunneloe is closer to Kincheloe than that name is to Chencello , a form of the family name recorded for Cornelius.

Spelling was notoriously fluid in the 1600s, even within the same document. And this is especially true with an uncommon surname that is still often misspelled today.

So, on the non-scientific scale of 1) no evidence and disproven, to 2) no evidence , to 3) some evidence, but still uncertain and without conclusive “proof” to 4) proven with a genealogical standard of evidence / primary source documentation, I would say this is about a three.